If Obamacare is so great why are there no insurers backing it and

[debbiedowner]

So are they on the government payroll with Medicare?

No, and that's why many doctors wont accept medicare patients------------------they expect to get paid for their services

they won't accept it altogether or simply won't accept Medicare assignment?

not sure what you are asking, many doctors do not take people using medicare for their only payment. several reasons: the paperwork requires them to hire staff just to process the forms, it only pays 80% and they have a hard time collecting the other 20% from the patients, medicare limits the treatment options and drugs that they can prescribe.

all reasons why putting the entire population on medicare would be a disaster.

Red, you are not on Medicare, and frankly you simply do not know what you are talking about. I live in a retire community with 31,000 people, all of whom are over 55 years old, and 80% are over 65 years old. Not only does the community have plenty of doctors, I have never had to wait more than 5 days to get an appointment. i have my choice of three private companies that compete with Medicare, or, Medicare, itself. I choose CareMore, which successfully competes because they throw in extra benefits that I like, including glasses, frames and vision exams. My benefits are 100% with a $300 hospital deductible, and a $15 copay to see a specialist. I pay nothing to see my primary care doc, or for lab work. My girl friend chose to buy a Medicare Supp. from a private company that even pays the copays and deductibles for her. Please try to stick to things that you are familiar with. Medicare Advantage, is apparently beyond your experience.

sorry dude, but I am on medicare. My wife and I have a medicare advantage plan through Humana that pays for things as you described in your post. It is a great plan and costs us about $45/month.

My point, which you refuse to get, is that if you put the entire country on plans like we have there just isn't enough money. Medicare is going broke. Medicare taxes on working people will have to be raised just to support the new retirees to whom medicare is guaranteed.

Yes, medicare is a good program, I like it. The supplements and advantage plans work well--------------for the small % of the country that is on them. Putting 330,000,000 people on medicare would bankrupt the country---------------unless the working americans are willing to have 60% of their paychecks taken from them by the government.

I am not proposing to put everyone on Medicare. I am proposing you give 50 or 55-64 the option to buy into it at a higher rate than we over 65 pay for it. They would have to pay a premium for A and B not just B like we currently pay.

that might work but the buy in amount would have to cover the cost and that might make it too expensive for most people.

I saw a proposal yesterday that said the buy in around $8000 well I think that may a little too much. Some healthy people in their mid 50's would buy in and may offset some unhealthy one. Hell, I was pretty healthy up til last year, age 68.

Then encourage these buy ins to purchase Med Advantage plans and let the insurance company deal with their health insurance needs. If they didn't want a Med Advantage or supplement (which are pretty expensive now for the under 65 crowd if disabled) then they would be 80/20 and if a doc or other provider did not accept they would be responsible for filing their own claims. Let the law stand that a doctor who does not accept Medicare can only charge 15% higher than what Medicare would approve. Example:

Doc charges $100 for office visit, Medicare approves $60.00 therefore the doc can only charge $9.00 and he is receiving $69.00 for that visit. I am using a family doc, specialists would have a little higher Medicare approval rate.

Do you sell MA policies?

Yes, but can only speak of it in general terms without mentioning any company.

 

[dblack]

I'm just glad you stupid fucks put Trump in charge of our health care. Party on!

 

[Vandalshandle]

Wrong, Red. The trouble with the VA is that they own and run their own hospitals. Medicare simply contracst that out to the private sector.

WTF do you think is the next step if we were to go to government run medicine? Think, dude (or dudette). Hospitals and doctors would be on the government payroll and the entire medical system would be one big VA like clusterf"k

And, yet, the government does not own a single health care provider under Medicare. Why do you think that universal health care would not operate like Medicare>?

medicare only applies to people 65 and older, and we paid for it out of our paychecks while working. Make it apply to everyone and the government will control all medicine.

single payer would not operate like medicare for several reasons
1. medicare only pays 80% of your medical bill
2. medicare is funded by payroll taxes
3. insurance companies cover most people under 65, Medicaid covers the rest
4. with single payer there is no incentive for healthcare providers to compete, no incentive for drug companies to develop new drugs, no incentive for doctors to develop new surgical techniques--------------------why you say--------------------because under single payer, medical providers would be paid a flat salary.

Red, you are not on Medicare, and frankly you simply do not know what you are talking about. I live in a retire community with 31,000 people, all of whom are over 55 years old, and 80% are over 65 years old. Not only does the community have plenty of doctors, I have never had to wait more than 5 days to get an appointment. i have my choice of three private companies that compete with Medicare, or, Medicare, itself. I choose CareMore, which successfully competes because they throw in extra benefits that I like, including glasses, frames and vision exams. My benefits are 100% with a $300 hospital deductible, and a $15 copay to see a specialist. I pay nothing to see my primary care doc, or for lab work. My girl friend chose to buy a Medicare Supp. from a private company that even pays the copays and deductibles for her. Please try to stick to things that you are familiar with. Medicare Advantage, is apparently beyond your experience.

sorry dude, but I am on medicare. My wife and I have a medicare advantage plan through Humana that pays for things as you described in your post. It is a great plan and costs us about $45/month.

My point, which you refuse to get, is that if you put the entire country on plans like we have there just isn't enough money. Medicare is going broke. Medicare taxes on working people will have to be raised just to support the new retirees to whom medicare is guaranteed.

Yes, medicare is a good program, I like it. The supplements and advantage plans work well--------------for the small % of the country that is on them. Putting 330,000,000 people on medicare would bankrupt the country---------------unless the working americans are willing to have 60% of their paychecks taken from them by the government.

Ok, I think I get it it. It is OK for you to be on Medicare Advantage, but not other people. While I have a problem trying to understand why that is, considering that the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, it doesn't really matter. The GOP motto, of, "I've got mine. To hell with you!" still defines the RW philosophy.

 

[dblack]

No, and that's why many doctors wont accept medicare patients------------------they expect to get paid for their services

they won't accept it altogether or simply won't accept Medicare assignment?

not sure what you are asking, many doctors do not take people using medicare for their only payment. several reasons: the paperwork requires them to hire staff just to process the forms, it only pays 80% and they have a hard time collecting the other 20% from the patients, medicare limits the treatment options and drugs that they can prescribe.

all reasons why putting the entire population on medicare would be a disaster.

sorry dude, but I am on medicare. My wife and I have a medicare advantage plan through Humana that pays for things as you described in your post. It is a great plan and costs us about $45/month.

My point, which you refuse to get, is that if you put the entire country on plans like we have there just isn't enough money. Medicare is going broke. Medicare taxes on working people will have to be raised just to support the new retirees to whom medicare is guaranteed.

Yes, medicare is a good program, I like it. The supplements and advantage plans work well--------------for the small % of the country that is on them. Putting 330,000,000 people on medicare would bankrupt the country---------------unless the working americans are willing to have 60% of their paychecks taken from them by the government.

I am not proposing to put everyone on Medicare. I am proposing you give 50 or 55-64 the option to buy into it at a higher rate than we over 65 pay for it. They would have to pay a premium for A and B not just B like we currently pay.

that might work but the buy in amount would have to cover the cost and that might make it too expensive for most people.

I saw a proposal yesterday that said the buy in around $8000 well I think that may a little too much. Some healthy people in their mid 50's would buy in and may offset some unhealthy one. Hell, I was pretty healthy up til last year, age 68.

Then encourage these buy ins to purchase Med Advantage plans and let the insurance company deal with their health insurance needs. If they didn't want a Med Advantage or supplement (which are pretty expensive now for the under 65 crowd if disabled) then they would be 80/20 and if a doc or other provider did not accept they would be responsible for filing their own claims. Let the law stand that a doctor who does not accept Medicare can only charge 15% higher than what Medicare would approve. Example:

Doc charges $100 for office visit, Medicare approves $60.00 therefore the doc can only charge $9.00 and he is receiving $69.00 for that visit. I am using a family doc, specialists would have a little higher Medicare approval rate.

Do you sell MA policies?

Yes, but can only speak of it in general terms without mentioning any company.

I sell bridges. Wanna trade?

 

[Redfish]

the best fix

repeal ACA completely, pass a new law that says:
1. insurance companies can compete across state lines
2. people with pre-existing conditions must be allowed to buy policies
3. no policy can have a life time maximum pay out
4. policies can be tailored to the needs of individuals i.e. you can buy only the coverages that you want and need.
5. Drug patents limited to 5 years, then generics can be produced and sold.

problem solved with a one page bill/law.

So how is #2 supposed to work? How much "insurance*" must be offered, and for how much? Can they charge anything they want?

* in quotes because that's not really insurance al all, is it?

the premium should be the same for everyone regardless of health status or age. "insurance" is a method by which risk is shared by a large group of people thereby reducing the financial risk to any individual. It works for the insurance company because the net collections exceed the payouts by a small margin. If not, the company fails.

 

[Redfish]

the best fix

repeal ACA completely, pass a new law that says:
1. insurance companies can compete across state lines
2. people with pre-existing conditions must be allowed to buy policies
3. no policy can have a life time maximum pay out
4. policies can be tailored to the needs of individuals i.e. you can buy only the coverages that you want and need.
5. Drug patents limited to 5 years, then generics can be produced and sold.

problem solved with a one page bill/law.

Unbeknownst to the general public Insurance companies were allowed to sell across state lines under obamacare and took effect 1/1/2016 no insurance company I know took advantage. You're dealing with each individual state office of insurance regulation and each state has different mandates that were in place before obamacare and damn near virtually impossible to set up networks. The closest thing to a national network is Bluecard under Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

that is not true. A company with operations in multiple states could pick a company in the most advantageous state to cover its employees in all states, but an individual living in California cannot buy a policy sold by a company in New York.

 

[Redfish]

WTF do you think is the next step if we were to go to government run medicine? Think, dude (or dudette). Hospitals and doctors would be on the government payroll and the entire medical system would be one big VA like clusterf"k

And, yet, the government does not own a single health care provider under Medicare. Why do you think that universal health care would not operate like Medicare>?

medicare only applies to people 65 and older, and we paid for it out of our paychecks while working. Make it apply to everyone and the government will control all medicine.

single payer would not operate like medicare for several reasons
1. medicare only pays 80% of your medical bill
2. medicare is funded by payroll taxes
3. insurance companies cover most people under 65, Medicaid covers the rest
4. with single payer there is no incentive for healthcare providers to compete, no incentive for drug companies to develop new drugs, no incentive for doctors to develop new surgical techniques--------------------why you say--------------------because under single payer, medical providers would be paid a flat salary.

Red, you are not on Medicare, and frankly you simply do not know what you are talking about. I live in a retire community with 31,000 people, all of whom are over 55 years old, and 80% are over 65 years old. Not only does the community have plenty of doctors, I have never had to wait more than 5 days to get an appointment. i have my choice of three private companies that compete with Medicare, or, Medicare, itself. I choose CareMore, which successfully competes because they throw in extra benefits that I like, including glasses, frames and vision exams. My benefits are 100% with a $300 hospital deductible, and a $15 copay to see a specialist. I pay nothing to see my primary care doc, or for lab work. My girl friend chose to buy a Medicare Supp. from a private company that even pays the copays and deductibles for her. Please try to stick to things that you are familiar with. Medicare Advantage, is apparently beyond your experience.

sorry dude, but I am on medicare. My wife and I have a medicare advantage plan through Humana that pays for things as you described in your post. It is a great plan and costs us about $45/month.

My point, which you refuse to get, is that if you put the entire country on plans like we have there just isn't enough money. Medicare is going broke. Medicare taxes on working people will have to be raised just to support the new retirees to whom medicare is guaranteed.

Yes, medicare is a good program, I like it. The supplements and advantage plans work well--------------for the small % of the country that is on them. Putting 330,000,000 people on medicare would bankrupt the country---------------unless the working americans are willing to have 60% of their paychecks taken from them by the government.

Ok, I think I get it it. It is OK for you to be on Medicare Advantage, but not other people. While I have a problem trying to understand why that is, considering that the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, it doesn't really matter. The GOP motto, of, "I've got mine. To hell with you!" still defines the RW philosophy.

wrong again, I paid medicare taxes for over 40 years, I pay a premium for my MA policy.

I understand that you want "free" medical care for everyone, I get it. But it wont be free, someone has to pay the doctors, hospitals, and drug companies. You say "just let the government pay them". Well, where does the government get its money? From YOU and ME. The "rest of the industrialized world" pays huge tax rates for its free stuff, and they get shitty medical care in exchange. Ask the Canadians (whose medical system is imploding) or the Brits if they like their "free" medical care. Ask them why they come to the US if they have serious medical issues.

 

[debbiedowner]

the best fix

repeal ACA completely, pass a new law that says:
1. insurance companies can compete across state lines
2. people with pre-existing conditions must be allowed to buy policies
3. no policy can have a life time maximum pay out
4. policies can be tailored to the needs of individuals i.e. you can buy only the coverages that you want and need.
5. Drug patents limited to 5 years, then generics can be produced and sold.

problem solved with a one page bill/law.

Unbeknownst to the general public Insurance companies were allowed to sell across state lines under obamacare and took effect 1/1/2016 no insurance company I know took advantage. You're dealing with each individual state office of insurance regulation and each state has different mandates that were in place before obamacare and damn near virtually impossible to set up networks. The closest thing to a national network is Bluecard under Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

that is not true. A company with operations in multiple states could pick a company in the most advantageous state to cover its employees in all states, but an individual living in California cannot buy a policy sold by a company in New York.

I thought you were talking about individual plans. Usually wherever a company is domiciled is the state they will pick their health insurer. You are intertwining group and individual rules.

 

[Vandalshandle]

And, yet, the government does not own a single health care provider under Medicare. Why do you think that universal health care would not operate like Medicare>?

medicare only applies to people 65 and older, and we paid for it out of our paychecks while working. Make it apply to everyone and the government will control all medicine.

single payer would not operate like medicare for several reasons
1. medicare only pays 80% of your medical bill
2. medicare is funded by payroll taxes
3. insurance companies cover most people under 65, Medicaid covers the rest
4. with single payer there is no incentive for healthcare providers to compete, no incentive for drug companies to develop new drugs, no incentive for doctors to develop new surgical techniques--------------------why you say--------------------because under single payer, medical providers would be paid a flat salary.

Red, you are not on Medicare, and frankly you simply do not know what you are talking about. I live in a retire community with 31,000 people, all of whom are over 55 years old, and 80% are over 65 years old. Not only does the community have plenty of doctors, I have never had to wait more than 5 days to get an appointment. i have my choice of three private companies that compete with Medicare, or, Medicare, itself. I choose CareMore, which successfully competes because they throw in extra benefits that I like, including glasses, frames and vision exams. My benefits are 100% with a $300 hospital deductible, and a $15 copay to see a specialist. I pay nothing to see my primary care doc, or for lab work. My girl friend chose to buy a Medicare Supp. from a private company that even pays the copays and deductibles for her. Please try to stick to things that you are familiar with. Medicare Advantage, is apparently beyond your experience.

sorry dude, but I am on medicare. My wife and I have a medicare advantage plan through Humana that pays for things as you described in your post. It is a great plan and costs us about $45/month.

My point, which you refuse to get, is that if you put the entire country on plans like we have there just isn't enough money. Medicare is going broke. Medicare taxes on working people will have to be raised just to support the new retirees to whom medicare is guaranteed.

Yes, medicare is a good program, I like it. The supplements and advantage plans work well--------------for the small % of the country that is on them. Putting 330,000,000 people on medicare would bankrupt the country---------------unless the working americans are willing to have 60% of their paychecks taken from them by the government.

Ok, I think I get it it. It is OK for you to be on Medicare Advantage, but not other people. While I have a problem trying to understand why that is, considering that the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, it doesn't really matter. The GOP motto, of, "I've got mine. To hell with you!" still defines the RW philosophy.

wrong again, I paid medicare taxes for over 40 years, I pay a premium for my MA policy.

I understand that you want "free" medical care for everyone, I get it. But it wont be free, someone has to pay the doctors, hospitals, and drug companies. You say "just let the government pay them". Well, where does the government get its money? From YOU and ME. The "rest of the industrialized world" pays huge tax rates for its free stuff, and they get shitty medical care in exchange. Ask the Canadians (whose medical system is imploding) or the Brits if they like their "free" medical care. Ask them why they come to the US if they have serious medical issues.

!. I never mentioned the word, "free". It is a matter of priority. We have over 200 military bases on foreign soil, spend more than the next 7 countries combined on military, and spen hundreds of millions of dollars per fighter airplane so that they can knock out our enemies driving around in 1993 Nissan pickup trucks. That is flat out ridicuals

2. There is nothing wrong with Canadian health care. I havve used it, and when I go into my Medicare donut hole, I order my RX from them , saving 1/3 the US cost. In fact, medical care tourism is a booming business. Speaking of which:

World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems

...the USA ranks 37, behind Canada, and even Costa Rica.

 

[dblack]

the premium should be the same for everyone regardless of health status or age. "insurance" is a method by which risk is shared by a large group of people thereby reducing the financial risk to any individual. It works for the insurance company because the net collections exceed the payouts by a small margin. If not, the company fails.

No, that's "group insurance", which doesn't work. It's a proven failure and we need to return to individual insurance policies, like we use in every other kind of insurance.

 

[Vandalshandle]

the premium should be the same for everyone regardless of health status or age. "insurance" is a method by which risk is shared by a large group of people thereby reducing the financial risk to any individual. It works for the insurance company because the net collections exceed the payouts by a small margin. If not, the company fails.

No, that's "group insurance", which doesn't work. It's a proven failure and we need to return to individual insurance policies, like we use in every other kind of insurance.

Black, that is so wrong, on so many different levels that it disqualifies you from further discussion on the subject.

 

[miketx]

Look how the lemmings flock to defend the indefensible.

 

[dblack]

the premium should be the same for everyone regardless of health status or age. "insurance" is a method by which risk is shared by a large group of people thereby reducing the financial risk to any individual. It works for the insurance company because the net collections exceed the payouts by a small margin. If not, the company fails.

No, that's "group insurance", which doesn't work. It's a proven failure and we need to return to individual insurance policies, like we use in every other kind of insurance.

Black, that is so wrong, on so many different levels that it disqualifies you from further discussion on the subject.

The fact that you, and so many others, have blinded yourselves to such an obvious reality is what's most wrong about it.

 

[dblack]

Look how the lemmings flock to defend the indefensible.

Sunk cost. They simply don't want to admit they were sold a bill of goods.

 

[Redfish]

the best fix

repeal ACA completely, pass a new law that says:
1. insurance companies can compete across state lines
2. people with pre-existing conditions must be allowed to buy policies
3. no policy can have a life time maximum pay out
4. policies can be tailored to the needs of individuals i.e. you can buy only the coverages that you want and need.
5. Drug patents limited to 5 years, then generics can be produced and sold.

problem solved with a one page bill/law.

Unbeknownst to the general public Insurance companies were allowed to sell across state lines under obamacare and took effect 1/1/2016 no insurance company I know took advantage. You're dealing with each individual state office of insurance regulation and each state has different mandates that were in place before obamacare and damn near virtually impossible to set up networks. The closest thing to a national network is Bluecard under Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

that is not true. A company with operations in multiple states could pick a company in the most advantageous state to cover its employees in all states, but an individual living in California cannot buy a policy sold by a company in New York.

I thought you were talking about individual plans. Usually wherever a company is domiciled is the state they will pick their health insurer. You are intertwining group and individual rules.

that is also not true. I worked for a company whose home office was in California. Their employees in all states were covered by Blue Cross of Illinois.

But my point remains valid. No individual can buy a policy except in the state where he resides. If that was done away with, there would be much more competition and lower premiums

 

[Redfish]

medicare only applies to people 65 and older, and we paid for it out of our paychecks while working. Make it apply to everyone and the government will control all medicine.

single payer would not operate like medicare for several reasons
1. medicare only pays 80% of your medical bill
2. medicare is funded by payroll taxes
3. insurance companies cover most people under 65, Medicaid covers the rest
4. with single payer there is no incentive for healthcare providers to compete, no incentive for drug companies to develop new drugs, no incentive for doctors to develop new surgical techniques--------------------why you say--------------------because under single payer, medical providers would be paid a flat salary.

Red, you are not on Medicare, and frankly you simply do not know what you are talking about. I live in a retire community with 31,000 people, all of whom are over 55 years old, and 80% are over 65 years old. Not only does the community have plenty of doctors, I have never had to wait more than 5 days to get an appointment. i have my choice of three private companies that compete with Medicare, or, Medicare, itself. I choose CareMore, which successfully competes because they throw in extra benefits that I like, including glasses, frames and vision exams. My benefits are 100% with a $300 hospital deductible, and a $15 copay to see a specialist. I pay nothing to see my primary care doc, or for lab work. My girl friend chose to buy a Medicare Supp. from a private company that even pays the copays and deductibles for her. Please try to stick to things that you are familiar with. Medicare Advantage, is apparently beyond your experience.

sorry dude, but I am on medicare. My wife and I have a medicare advantage plan through Humana that pays for things as you described in your post. It is a great plan and costs us about $45/month.

My point, which you refuse to get, is that if you put the entire country on plans like we have there just isn't enough money. Medicare is going broke. Medicare taxes on working people will have to be raised just to support the new retirees to whom medicare is guaranteed.

Yes, medicare is a good program, I like it. The supplements and advantage plans work well--------------for the small % of the country that is on them. Putting 330,000,000 people on medicare would bankrupt the country---------------unless the working americans are willing to have 60% of their paychecks taken from them by the government.

Ok, I think I get it it. It is OK for you to be on Medicare Advantage, but not other people. While I have a problem trying to understand why that is, considering that the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, it doesn't really matter. The GOP motto, of, "I've got mine. To hell with you!" still defines the RW philosophy.

wrong again, I paid medicare taxes for over 40 years, I pay a premium for my MA policy.

I understand that you want "free" medical care for everyone, I get it. But it wont be free, someone has to pay the doctors, hospitals, and drug companies. You say "just let the government pay them". Well, where does the government get its money? From YOU and ME. The "rest of the industrialized world" pays huge tax rates for its free stuff, and they get shitty medical care in exchange. Ask the Canadians (whose medical system is imploding) or the Brits if they like their "free" medical care. Ask them why they come to the US if they have serious medical issues.

!. I never mentioned the word, "free". It is a matter of priority. We have over 200 military bases on foreign soil, spend more than the next 7 countries combined on military, and spen hundreds of millions of dollars per fighter airplane so that they can knock out our enemies driving around in 1993 Nissan pickup trucks. That is flat out ridicuals

2. There is nothing wrong with Canadian health care. I havve used it, and when I go into my Medicare donut hole, I order my RX from them , saving 1/3 the US cost. In fact, medical care tourism is a booming business. Speaking of which:

World Health Organization's Ranking of the World's Health Systems

...the USA ranks 37, behind Canada, and even Costa Rica.

then I suggest that you go to Costa Rica for your heart bypass surgery.

those rankings are pure unadulterated bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

the premium should be the same for everyone regardless of health status or age. "insurance" is a method by which risk is shared by a large group of people thereby reducing the financial risk to any individual. It works for the insurance company because the net collections exceed the payouts by a small margin. If not, the company fails.

No, that's "group insurance", which doesn't work. It's a proven failure and we need to return to individual insurance policies, like we use in every other kind of insurance.

ALL insurance is group insurance. WTF is wrong with you? Are you that fricken dumb?

 

[debbiedowner]

the best fix

repeal ACA completely, pass a new law that says:
1. insurance companies can compete across state lines
2. people with pre-existing conditions must be allowed to buy policies
3. no policy can have a life time maximum pay out
4. policies can be tailored to the needs of individuals i.e. you can buy only the coverages that you want and need.
5. Drug patents limited to 5 years, then generics can be produced and sold.

problem solved with a one page bill/law.

Unbeknownst to the general public Insurance companies were allowed to sell across state lines under obamacare and took effect 1/1/2016 no insurance company I know took advantage. You're dealing with each individual state office of insurance regulation and each state has different mandates that were in place before obamacare and damn near virtually impossible to set up networks. The closest thing to a national network is Bluecard under Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

that is not true. A company with operations in multiple states could pick a company in the most advantageous state to cover its employees in all states, but an individual living in California cannot buy a policy sold by a company in New York.

I thought you were talking about individual plans. Usually wherever a company is domiciled is the state they will pick their health insurer. You are intertwining group and individual rules.

that is also not true. I worked for a company whose home office was in California. Their employees in all states were covered by Blue Cross of Illinois.

But my point remains valid. No individual can buy a policy except in the state where he resides. If that was done away with, there would be much more competition and lower premiums

Your point about individual is valid except Jan 1, 2016 under the ACA companies could have sold across state lines, no one to my knowledge did. Too many regulations from state to state.

 

[debbiedowner]

the premium should be the same for everyone regardless of health status or age. "insurance" is a method by which risk is shared by a large group of people thereby reducing the financial risk to any individual. It works for the insurance company because the net collections exceed the payouts by a small margin. If not, the company fails.

No, that's "group insurance", which doesn't work. It's a proven failure and we need to return to individual insurance policies, like we use in every other kind of insurance.

ALL insurance is group insurance. WTF is wrong with you? Are you that fricken dumb?

No all insurance is not group insurance.

 

[Redfish]

the best fix

repeal ACA completely, pass a new law that says:
1. insurance companies can compete across state lines
2. people with pre-existing conditions must be allowed to buy policies
3. no policy can have a life time maximum pay out
4. policies can be tailored to the needs of individuals i.e. you can buy only the coverages that you want and need.
5. Drug patents limited to 5 years, then generics can be produced and sold.

problem solved with a one page bill/law.

Unbeknownst to the general public Insurance companies were allowed to sell across state lines under obamacare and took effect 1/1/2016 no insurance company I know took advantage. You're dealing with each individual state office of insurance regulation and each state has different mandates that were in place before obamacare and damn near virtually impossible to set up networks. The closest thing to a national network is Bluecard under Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.

that is not true. A company with operations in multiple states could pick a company in the most advantageous state to cover its employees in all states, but an individual living in California cannot buy a policy sold by a company in New York.

I thought you were talking about individual plans. Usually wherever a company is domiciled is the state they will pick their health insurer. You are intertwining group and individual rules.

that is also not true. I worked for a company whose home office was in California. Their employees in all states were covered by Blue Cross of Illinois.

But my point remains valid. No individual can buy a policy except in the state where he resides. If that was done away with, there would be much more competition and lower premiums

Your point about individual is valid except Jan 1, 2016 under the ACA companies could have sold across state lines, no one to my knowledge did. Too many regulations from state to state.

Can you provide a cite from ACA to verify that? I never heard that, but if you say it was so, then you should be able to verify it for us